|
Disinterested posted:Libertarians always use the least intellectually credible author available to assert their argument. Most libertarians don't even like Nozick, and his is by far the most credible recent effort at justifying libertarianism. There is just too much danger in the slippery slope away from core libertarian doctrines if you import too much of the broader anglophone philosophical tradition, I guess. They don't even do that. Libertarianism has done an extremely good job at selling itself as technocratic centrist liberalism to people with a not-very-good understanding of political philosophy, and that's what I can almost guarantee that poster is
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 13:53 |
|
icantfindaname posted:They don't even do that. Libertarianism has done an extremely good job at selling itself as technocratic centrist liberalism to people with a not-very-good understanding of political philosophy, and that's what I can almost guarantee that poster is I mean dyed-in-the-wool ones, it's different for people who just have a kind of sloppy 'the state - maybe it's bad' brand of right-liberalism which you're talking about. There are other jrodes in the world.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Verge posted:First off, thank you for attacking my points and not my personage. I know that can be hard for people, especially when talking about subjects as touchy as race. You're right, I don't have hatred in my heart for any races/sexes/orientations. De nada. You've done really well in being open, honest, and willing to have a dialog about this so far. I'm going to be breaking your reply up into a couple of different parts, because there's a few things I want to address specifically, and a few I want to address generally. quote:Entire towns? Not only can I believe that, I condone it. Look, racism is a very difficult idea to kill, the best we can hope for is to either censor it or quarantine it. What better way than to create a haven of sorts for them, rather, let them create said haven. Yes, any minorities left in that town will absolutely hate their life but on the bright side you have the potential for a virtually hate-free community outside of these toxic zones...in theory (I'm not going to sit here and act like these ideas work without question). Here's the thing, we already tried these ideas, for a really really long time. And the results were so harmful and disastrous to minorities that even more than half a century later we're still dealing with the effects. Undoing all of that isn't going to just focus all the racist into a couple of cities, it's going to take over possibly as much of half of the entire nation, especially the rural south, where it's already difficult for many minorities. quote:Maybe I'm being naive but I can't see Wal-Mart or many other large companies putting hate above profit. Not as a actual posted corporate policy, no, but individual stores absolutely would with de facto policies of "we don't serve your kind here". We literally saw this happen in huge chains like Woolworths, Sears, and other companies that had outlets nationwide participated in racial segregation to varying degrees. So this isn't some out-there scenario I'm talking about, I'm asking how your ideal society would deal with our nation regressing to the times of the 1950s, if you even believe such a thing needs to be dealt with at all. quote:As far as what prevents, say, a major collusion of racists keeping minorities down, first off, I don't believe in price discrimination; you either serve or you don't - no in-betweenies. My motive for that opinion is actually for completely different reasons but it serves useful here. Would you mind expounding on this? What do you mean you don't believe in price discrimination? Do you not think that it's something that happens, or do you not believe that charging a white person $5 and a black person $10 for the exact same item or service is a form of discrimination? And what motive do you have for holding that opinion, as it's not clear from the rest of your post what that is. quote:Second, if you're a bank and you're either not serving minorities or charging them, say, 10% APR while whites get 5%, you're creating a niche market for would-be competitors. That means anyone can step in, offer everyone 6% APR and make a killing off minorities. Naturally, this is still wrong, right? Well worry not, the niche market still exists and others will undercut the 6% It's worth noting that I'd require very large and obvious signage indicating a business's racism, if existent. Who's going to do this? From where? With what capital? It's not enough to say that the free market will fix this, I'm afraid. How is a competitor supposed to survive by only getting 5% of a total population of consumers? Again, this is something we know happened, we even have a term for it: Redlining. As for the signage, don't worry, the business will probably do that for you, and I don't see what exactly that will accomplish. quote:Further, if this still didn't quelch the issue, if minorities are still having trouble conducting business due to racism in the business world, we'd have to invoke some sort of racism 'penalty' by requiring a license for racism that'd, say, add 10% to their yearly taxes. Not exactly a completely free world by my standards but a necessary compromise to keep racist businesses a small niche. Again, I only have a problem if this became a nationwide issue, not a city-wide issue - I simply wouldn't want to live in that city. How would you assess this? Especially for chain businesses, is the entire business' revenue taxed if one location is racist, or is it done on a location by location basis? Is this to be self-reported by the business or are you going to create a new government organization to go around and determine if a business is actually employing discriminatory policies? What criteria are you going to use? How often is this determined, yearly, every five years, every decade? It's fine if you don't have answers for this right now, but it is something that has to be considered if this is going to be the position you stand by. quote:Disclaimer: I can not empathize with those who do not move away from their city when the going gets tough. I live in an awesome city, I'll move if it becomes less awesome, so if I sound cold-hearted, it's simply because I don't understand why people remain in lovely cities. Ok, this here may be a lot of the problem. And I'm going to use a word that you might have a knee-jerk reaction to, so I want to make clear that what I'm about to say isn't an attack on your character, even though it may feel that way at first. Please read over this next paragraph carefully and consider what I'm saying. This statement is indicative of a privilege you have that many people, especially minorities, don't have. It's both a financial and logistical nightmare to try and move out of a city. Last July my wife and I bought a house and moved out of the city of Lansing and into one of it's suburbs. Not counting the down payment on the mortgage, just the cost of physically moving out of our apartment to our new home was almost $3,000 between lost hours at work, paying fees to end our lease, switch over utilities, and about a million other nickel and dime expenses that added up astoundingly quickly. Now, my wife and I both have vehicles, and we were able to get immediate and extended friends and family to help us pack and transport all of our stuff in their vans and trucks, and my wife has a fantastic job and I just recently got full-time employment (that still doesn't pay a livable wage but is much, much better than any job I've had before) so we were able to afford that with minimal negative impact to our lives. But had even one of those things not been the case, we might not have been able to move. If we didn't own our own cars, if one or both of us had lost our jobs, had one of us sustained a major injury, or any one of a thousand different scenarios happened we would have had to back out of the mortgage signing, lost our deposit, and been stuck where we were. The only reason we even could move at all is because we could keep our current jobs. So what are people supposed to do when they don't have a couple grand saved up in the bank? If they don't have a support network of friends and family? If they don't even have their own transportation? How can they afford to move out of the state, or across the country? What happens when they can't find a job when they get there, or an apartment they can afford? Being able to just pack up your life and leave is a luxury that most people do not, and some never will have. It's easy to say, "Oh, I'll just move if things get bad." if you've never had to actually do that, or never had to do that while living in poverty or massive debt. Does that make it impossible to do? No, absolutely not, people can and do do it, if they're lucky. But it's not nearly so simple as you're making it out to be and its not a mystery why so many people don't or can't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:What do you mean by "most free"? Free from what? Free to do what? Why is that most important to you? I think clarifying your goals would help people understand your argument a little better. I guess I'm having trouble answering the question. I suppose I always assume the answer is obvious, simple and the same as any political system...it seems like it's the best thing for humanity. Freedom is good because freedom gives you not only the opportunity to thrive, but to fail and we will learn from our mistakes and not repeat them, in all likelihood. Freedom, to me, is intrinsically good - it does not need justification or reason, freedom is like deliciousness. If you don't accept that trying to get the most freedom with the least potential for wrongdoing is a naturally good thing, then we are ideologically incompatible. I don't have the intellectual prowess to defend freedom being a good thing any further than that. Dilkington posted:Why did you assume your readers could intuit your motivation for this compromise: To the compromise question...I don't know. I thought I explained it. These questions are getting so precise and detailed it's like I'm playing the 'why' game. You put stipulations because you have to draw the line at some point. For example, we all agree that everyone should be allowed to generate some level of waste, airborne and household, biological and artificial. That being said, we put limits on it. Read: emissions regulations. You should be free to gently caress up the atmo somewhat, but we've come to an agreement that you should make due effort to prevent your atmo up-fuckery. Same with discrimination. I don't care if you refuse a dozen or so minorities (well, I do, but I think you should have the right to) but when an entire nation of minorities has NOWHERE to go for bread, you have a problem. As to why I draw my arbitrary lines where I draw them? Well...darts. I honestly just chuck 'em where it seems nice. I'm an armchair politician, not a political scientist and urban planner. Racist concentration camps: I'm sorry, are you telling me that you actually believe that half our nation would be saturated with racists? Eh...actually, I believe it but again, in what way is that a problem, so long as racists and non-racists naturally stay on their side of the fences? Note that I'm not talking about racial segregation (well, not condoning it) but ideological separation, like a state's rights advocate. Listen, having dated outside of my race as a 15 year old that honestly and truly thought there was 0 racism in my city before-the-fact, I'm aware they're everywhere. Wouldn't it be nice if they were...over there[/]? We don't serve your kind: Did you see my idea about businesses having to post notice to be able to enforce racist policies? I expected something like that [i]could become necessary. Price discrimination: No, I mean it should be illegal. You either serve people or you do not, a company should not be allowed to perform price discrimination based on any intangible or emotional based factor. That means not race, origin, gender, etc. Only special accommodations. Hm...redlining, eh? That's...wait, how would any system prevent that? I find this to be too difficult a challenge for all but the most restrictive of regulatory systems! Yes, an entire chain should be punished if one significant agent is invoking racist policies. A business that identifies as non-racist should be appalled at racism within their agency, just as is standard today. You didn't use the word. Ignorant? Because ignorance is what I was expressing: I am ignorant of the struggle because I have not lived it. It's a difficult I do not understand but let's actually address this. If your house caught fire, actually caught loving fire. Insurance didn't pay out. No assistance was given. You got to keep your car and a thousand dollars...could you float your way through the next couple paychecks, get a new apartment and crawl back up from this gently caress-uppery? I have a computer and a motorcycle. My girlfriend has a minivan (I don't even loving know, dude), a moped and a pig. We both have smartphones. These are the things that give financial or emotional stability. Fits in a car cab, don't it? If you're not doin' this, you're fuckin' up. Furniture is really fuckin' nice to have but if you can sleep in a car, you can sleep in some blankets. We're gonna get some bicycles to contribute to our oh-poo poo plan because gasoline. A bug-out plan is like insurance: if you don't have it, you're making a wager and I won't feel pity for you if you get burned. I see a lot of impoverished people doing poo poo wrong...not homeless, just poor. Living paycheck to paycheck, $1500 in CC debt...not buying poo poo at the Goodwill. The gently caress they think they are, Rockefeller? If you're in insurmountable debt, you need to be purchasing at the thrift store. If you don't have a safety net, you are in insurmountable debt. Now maybe I'm lucky with a girl that's been homeless (couch surfing and car-sleeping homeless, not bench homeless) so she doesn't expect me to open up 2 new credit cards to impress her with gifts, or ride a Harley (oh wait I do but that's irrelevant  ) You have 2 cars. That's a fuckin' luxury. Standard of living is 2 mopeds or MAYBE a moped and a car. You know how many MPG you can have!?!? I can't stress this enough, if you don't have a rainy day fund, you are hosed in any world, libertarian or near-socialist. I feel the argument of, "Some people can't figure out how to save money and keep it for when poo poo truly hits the fan," is as unfair to libertarians as the welfare queen (no, dad, they don't exist...en masse) argument is to socialists.Note that I'm not attacking you, you got through your experience fine - you proved your financial mettle to the world and showed the universe that you're not gonna be its bitch of circumstance. Know what happened when my first motorcycle bit the dust? I bought another one. I spent 2 hours on CL (buying a motorcycle is personal) found one that would get me to work and back (it is my only form of transport), ran to bank on Monday and picked up the cash. No problem. I barely flinched, financially. 4 years later I'd buy a brand new bike because dream bike and poo poo. The only advantage I have over everyone else is that I listened when my high school econ teacher spoke. I've only ever employed his lessons to save my rear end. Alas, though...it seems a bit much to eat minorities' nest eggs over such a stupid thing, especially because the next neighborhood could go to poo poo within a year. I concede that civil rights based on rights are a must. I only keep the above, guess you'd call it a rant, because it's so very relevant to survival in a libertarian, or even capitalist, world. The "life happens," argument is poo poo, not that you've used it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
Verge: what is freedom? You still haven't defined the good you're holding up as paramount, you're assuming it has some axiomatic meaning we all understand.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
Verge posted:Further, if this still didn't quelch the issue, if minorities are still having trouble conducting business due to racism in the business world, we'd have to invoke some sort of racism 'penalty' by requiring a license for racism that'd, say, add 10% to their yearly taxes. Not exactly a completely free world by my standards but a necessary compromise to keep racist businesses a small niche. Again, I only have a problem if this became a nationwide issue, not a city-wide issue - I simply wouldn't want to live in that city. Disclaimer: I can not empathize with those who do not move away from their city when the going gets tough. I live in an awesome city, I'll move if it becomes less awesome, so if I sound cold-hearted, it's simply because I don't understand why people remain in lovely cities. because they don't have money, and the money they'd save up and use to move is spent on surviving in the city they currently live in. BENGHAZI 2 fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Nov 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
Verge posted:First off, thank you for attacking my points and not my personage. I know that can be hard for people, especially when talking about subjects as touchy as race. You're right, I don't have hatred in my heart for any races/sexes/orientations. This may seem like an attack against you but it's difficult to be honest and not have it sound like it is. So please don't take this as personal. While not all libertarians, the die harders are sociopaths. I'm not trying to be overly dramatic, they simply do not give one poo poo about anyone but themselves and their money. The policies they hate they hate because it spends their money. During the libertarian golden time of D&D a libertarian mod flat out admitted he was ok with someone dying on the sidewalk outside a hospital if they couldn't afford it because saving him would cost him in taxes. Study US history. Are you against unions? People literally died to ensure you have the right to not be a slave to your employer. Without their sacrifices you wouldn't have 40 hour work weeks, workplace safety regulations, paid time off or any of the other dozens of worker protections that exist. None of this came from benolent capitalist ubermen it was a result of decades if not centuries of workers being borderline slaves to those benevolent businessmen. Racism is an embarrassing stain on our history that only started to be solved when the collective of the people, that evil government, stepped in to end decades of systemic horrors visited on minorities. It has never been made better by capitalism, it instead stoked it and used it as a tool to keep the hatred as strong as possible. Your life isn't difficult because of us, it's those drat minorities sucking on free obamaphones and free healthcare and food and houses and Cadillacs. None of which exist or were started by such liberal politicians like saint Reagan (the phones). Few people will disagree that the focus of government has drifted far away from serving its citizens to serving the rich and powerful but fixing that is not accomplished by electing even more politicians who want to unravel the social system the country spent decades of blood and sweat to build. Your life is 'easy' BECAUSE of the very systems libertarians want so desperatlly to dismantle. Ask yourself is a world where you have no idea if the food, water and medicine you eat and take is safe because the FDA/EPA/Whatever is stifling the free market? Or are they protecting you from companies that used to have no problem selling you radium water despite it causing people's jaws to literally disintegrate or any other 'our secret totally legit untested by any regulated body medicine will cure X'. Hell you had a presidential libertarian candidate not long ago who had blue skin because he drank colloidal silver rather than believe that drat evil FDA. Modern government absolutely needs a major overhaul. But until the crazies took over in general it's purpose was to make your life easier and allow you the freedom to pursue what you wanted and not have to worry about things like where your next meal is coming from, is it safe to eat, will my house fall down, catch fire and sink into the swamp because the developer didn't have that evil government telling him he can't build a house without a foundation in a swamp and made out of highly unstable flammable materials. It's not been perfect but the solution is fix it, not burn it down.because the generations before you did what they could to make your life easier. It's the social contract, we all contribute to society to make everyone's lives better, it doesn't end just because you (the general you, not you specially) have what you want so get to opt out. Again, I do not want you to think of this post as attacking you. But over and over when you talk to libertarians you will eventually drill down to all they care about : My money and gently caress anyone else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
And this is Stan Jones, libertarian presidential candidate who didn't believe the FDA so bought into colloidal silver as a cure all. This is what unregulated medicine results in
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
Verge posted:Racist concentration camps: I'm sorry, are you telling me that you actually believe that half our nation would be saturated with racists? Eh...actually, I believe it but again, in what way is that a problem, so long as racists and non-racists naturally stay on their side of the fences? Note that I'm not talking about racial segregation (well, not condoning it) but ideological separation, like a state's rights advocate. I'm going to have to stop you right there because "state's rights" is almost always used as an excuse for institutionalized racism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:And this is Stan Jones, libertarian presidential candidate who didn't believe the FDA so bought into colloidal silver as a cure all. This is what unregulated medicine results in In case anyone thinks that's a bad photograph, he's actually that colour. He's got a quite impressive case of Argyria.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 06:39
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:In case anyone thinks that's a bad photograph, he's actually that colour. He's got a quite impressive case of Argyria.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 12:47
|
|
|
hell, i'll stand for Purestrain Smurf's right to drink whatever toxic substance he wants!
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:This may seem like an attack against you but it's difficult to be honest and not have it sound like it is. So please don't take this as personal. Your sociopath argument seems to argue that I think I would fare much better than everyone else. I am not ok w/ someone dying, for any reason, if they have not lived a full life. That being said, people die. Often times we spend tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayer or insurance money on a life that was, I know it sounds cold to say but, unimportant. Not saying I'm important but I've done enough deeds in the world, performed enough work, to pay such a bill myself. I've proven my inexpendiblity to the world through work, as most people have, and the evidence is in my bank account, as it is yours. I'm not against unions. I still can not comprehend why any freedom-loving person would be, though I do see freedom-lovers hating on unions, I can not comprehend why they make this distinction. You make my point for me: racism is still very much alive and kicking today. An economic system won't change this, it will only hide it. No matter how much we try and quelch it kicks up. That being said, I rescinded my views on allowing racism. The complications are too difficult to control for. I love the FDA. No, really, I passionately love the FDA. Like any government agency, they've had corruption but overall, they've been pretty fuckin' decent until you look at what pharma did to them - but that's another conversation for a completely different day. OSHA, FDA, etc.? I'll keep 'em. That being said, I think it should be legal to work in an inhospitable environment, it should be legal to serve poison, so long as your victims know what they're getting into and you're willing and able to pay for the consequences. Safety protocols like the FDA, OSHA, justice system, etc. are wonderful and we need them but when we give them unnecessary regulatory power, they have potential for corruption. If all the FDA ever did was put massive warnings on poo poo, I'd be happy. I'm not rich. Your post isn't attacking, you're right on point. The one thing I have a problem with is people assigning this "Verge just wants to keep his money," attitude to me and other libertarians. I imagine my life would be relatively unchanged. I would probably be worse off, since I prefer stability. I'd be very happy in a socialist system but a libertarian system is what seems most free to me and, of course, freedom is what I'm after. spoon0042 posted:I'm going to have to stop you right there because "state's rights" is almost always used as an excuse for institutionalized racism. Do I score points if I say that any state bearing the confederate flag on state buildings should be treated as an outspoken threat and tanks should use no-less-than lethal force to get them taken down? No, when I say state's rights, I'm speaking of things such as drug use, gambling, etc. - not racism, slavery, fed taxes. I've already rescinded my apathetic attitude toward allowing racism: it (professional racism) shouldn't be allowed. Who What Now made a strong argument against allowing it. I just don't think Utah should have any more care what Texas does than Mexico should care what Norway does. Verge fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Nov 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Verge posted:No, when I say state's rights, I'm speaking of things such as drug use, gambling, etc. - not racism, slavery, fed taxes. I've already rescinded my apathetic attitude toward allowing racism: it (professional racism) shouldn't be allowed. Who What Now made a strong argument against allowing it. I just don't think Utah should have any more care what Texas does than Mexico should care what Norway does. You can say that saying "states rights" means whatever you want it to mean, just understand that anyone listening will think you are a white supremacist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
I don't understand why maintaining this nebulous idea of 'freedom' around property rights is more important than achieving happiness, stability, and prosperity for the greatest number.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Verge posted:Your sociopath argument seems to argue that I think I would fare much better than everyone else. I am not ok w/ someone dying, for any reason, if they have not lived a full life. That being said, people die. Often times we spend tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayer or insurance money on a life that was, I know it sounds cold to say but, unimportant. Not saying I'm important but I've done enough deeds in the world, performed enough work, to pay such a bill myself. I've proven my inexpendiblity to the world through work, as most people have, and the evidence is in my bank account, as it is yours. Setting aside that you're assigning worth to what's in your bank account, have you really done enough to pay such a bill? If, tomorrow, you're in a motorcycle accident that, say, costs you both of your legs, are you able to foot the bill for the years, perhaps even a lifetime, of surgeries and physical therapy? Even just the costs after insurance are going to be astronomical, assuming that there isn't some vital procedure or treatment that isn't fully covered. And you're not going to be able to work for years, if ever again. This is exactly the kind of catastrophic accident that sends even the most well-prepared person deep into debt and bankruptcy. It's not likely by any stretch of the imagination, but it's a very real scenario all the same. Am I to assume that should that happen you would include yourself among that number who is no longer important enough to "waste" tens of thousands of tax-payer and insurance dollars upon? Or is it that once you have earned $[X] amount of money you attain "important" status, and if so, how much would that be and how did you come to that determination? Again, this seems to me to be a lot like the racism issue where it's a position that on it's face seems to make logical sense, but that I'm not sure you've fully thought through. EDIT Because this is the Newbie thread, and I know it can be intimidating to have four, five, six, or even more posters "gang up" and grill you about your political views, I wanna offer some encouragement that you're doing really great so far. You've been honest and willing to actually actively engage in dialog and reconsider your position based on the arguments and criticisms leveled against you. That's a hell of a lot better than anyone else has ever managed in the Libertarian threads (which feel free to come visit!) and insomuch as anyone should ever be "proud" of their posting on these forums, that's something to be commended. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Nov 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
sudo rm -rf posted:I don't understand why maintaining this nebulous idea of 'freedom' around property rights is more important than achieving happiness, stability, and prosperity for the greatest number.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 18:07
|
|
Cingulate posted:The track record of the former is much better than that of the latter. Cf. Isaiah Berlin. What, specifically, of Isaiah Berlin are you citing? Since you haven't provided anything else, I can just pretend you were referring to hedgehogs and foxes, instead of negative and positive liberty. Without the specifics, actually challenging the assertion that negative liberty is always better in outcomes than positive liberty becomes an interesting game of making sarcastic statements about the quality of negative-liberty healthcare, like the American system.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:What, specifically, of Isaiah Berlin are you citing? Since you haven't provided anything else, I can just pretend you were referring to hedgehogs and foxes, instead of negative and positive liberty. Without the specifics, actually challenging the assertion that negative liberty is always better in outcomes than positive liberty becomes an interesting game of making sarcastic statements about the quality of negative-liberty healthcare, like the American system. My point is: it is not trivially obvious how someone might prefer negative over positive liberties, considering the last 100 or so years, where a lot more people died in the name of positive liberties than negative ones. And you can make a bunch of points here I'd basically agree with you on (e.g. Hitler may seem like a defender of positive liberties more than one of negative liberties, but in truth, he is just, as a reactionary weapon of the capitalist system against a potential socialist uprising, better seen as acting in the name of property rights etc. etc.), but it's not trivially obvious.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 19:58
|
|
Cingulate posted:I'd never claim always here, or I surely would have to stop being a socialist. I straight up disagree with Berlin's notion of two liberties, though! I consider it purely a historically contingent phenomenon that we can even speak of such things.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I straight up disagree with Berlin's notion of two liberties, though! I consider it purely a historically contingent phenomenon that we can even speak of such things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Every time I feel like making a post in this forum I look around at the people posting and realize that they have absolutely no interest in debating or discussing and also that I do not want to be associated with any of them in any circumstance. Namaste.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
Control Volume posted:Every time I feel like making a post in this forum I look around at the people posting and realize that they have absolutely no interest in debating or discussing and also that I do not want to be associated with any of them in any circumstance. Namaste. Be the change you want to see, broheim.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Be the change you want to see, broheim. The paradox of this is that I would have to not be repelled by the forum in the first place to want to involve myself in it for the better. So, no.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
Control Volume posted:The paradox of this is that I would have to not be repelled by the forum in the first place to want to involve myself in it for the better. And yet here you are, posting with the same attitude that you're supposedly repelled by.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You can say that saying "states rights" means whatever you want it to mean, just understand that anyone listening will think you are a white supremacist. You're right. You're totally right. But you shouldn't assume state's rights means racism, either. If someone says they're a socialist, I don't assume they're a spai. sudo rm -rf posted:I don't understand why maintaining this nebulous idea of 'freedom' around property rights is more important than achieving happiness, stability, and prosperity for the greatest number. Because freedom, in my opinion, begets happiness for a large number of people in and of itself. Who What Now posted:Setting aside that you're assigning worth to what's in your bank account, have you really done enough to pay such a bill? If, tomorrow, you're in a motorcycle accident that, say, costs you both of your legs, are you able to foot the bill for the years, perhaps even a lifetime, of surgeries and physical therapy? Even just the costs after insurance are going to be astronomical, assuming that there isn't some vital procedure or treatment that isn't fully covered. And you're not going to be able to work for years, if ever again. This is exactly the kind of catastrophic accident that sends even the most well-prepared person deep into debt and bankruptcy. It's not likely by any stretch of the imagination, but it's a very real scenario all the same. Am I to assume that should that happen you would include yourself among that number who is no longer important enough to "waste" tens of thousands of tax-payer and insurance dollars upon? Or is it that once you have earned $[X] amount of money you attain "important" status, and if so, how much would that be and how did you come to that determination? First off, I really appreciate the edit. Not gonna lie, this has been somewhat frustrating at times. Not anyone's fault but my own for being on an unpopular side and choosing to enter a debate thread with that stance, totally worth it as this is a great way to re-evaluate my libertarian ideals, as I initially said I need to do. Onto your arguments, though. If I'm in a motorcycle accident in my hypothetical libertarian nation, I will not be prepared (and will not prepare myself, should it [libertarian nation] become a reality) for a serious injury such as broken legs. I would die on the street unless assisted by a third party w/ a kind and pitying heart, which is more than I could ask for. My medical bills would not be a wise investment for any loan agency so I probably wouldn't get anything but stabilized and I'd die of gangrene. If it were to BREAK my legs, I'd be a worthwhile loan venture, because you can recover from that, but if they're a total loss? Hell no. Your scenario is pretty realistic, it does happen and one should either plan for it or have habits that prevent it. For example, I wear gear on the motorcycle, I teach myself to have good balance so I'm not likely to fall in non-motorcycle related would-be accidents. I try and prevent that future from happening but you're right, it's still possible and if it were to happen, I'd die from it. I'm ok with that. As far as defining importance, you are as important as much as you're willing to spend or others are willing to spend on you. I'm important enough to own a Harley because I bought a Harley. I worked, I saved and the world OWED me a new motorcycle (or ten thousand McDonald's cheeseburgers or however you spend your money). Now that I have the bike, the debt is paid and no one owes me anything until I accumulate more inverse debt (dollars). If you think of money as favors the world owes you and debt as favors you owe the world, you can get a basic idea of how important you are based off your chance for getting something done, which would take either your money, a loan or a combination. NINJNA loans not withstanding. Also, anti-poor != racist. Though I don't want to call myself or my proposed policies anti-poor because it sounds like I run around kicking the poor or at least want to, I can't stand here and act like libertarian ideals wouldn't seriously hurt the poor. You can't create an environment where you can't be anti-poor without being thought of a racist because that completely negates conversation to a circumstance where the only valid and moral stance is one where socialism rules, it's a rigged game against libertarians, under that mindset. I know no one's actively trying to do that, I know it's not a conspiracy, it's a side effect but I need to point it out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
I'm more repelled by the rampant and unceasing hostility, sarcasm, and insular nature of thread regulars, traits that I am actively attempting to avoid. If I were to be part of the problem of this forum, my response would be something akin to, "And what exactly is that attitude I'm posting with, Who What Now," possibly with an emoticon or other passive-aggressive gesture. Instead I am posting sincere criticism of it and maybe offering insight into why people avoid this forum to such a degree that a moderator thought a thread like this was necessary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
One of the issues is that there seems to be a propensity to escalate the sarcasm. My initial post in this thread was very blasé, to be sure, but the immediate response was hostility and derision. This isn't meant as an attack on Who What Now, but rather the sort of culture that's allowed to foster here. The D&D chat thread, for example, is fairly big on bitter mockery of other threads and posters, despite supposedly being an attempt at reducing the forum being incredibly uptight at the time. The recently locked thread about social issues was full of callouts of other posters, both sides of which seemed disinterested in debate and more interested in feeling superior to each other, and the only response was a half-hearted slap on the wrist on posters that continue their toxic personalities in other threads. Perhaps it's an unsolvable problem of the impersonal nature of the internet, perhaps its a failure of moderation, but regardless of the root cause, this is not an interesting or pleasant forum to read when it could be. e: In an act of good faith I am going to make a thread that I hope will be immune to the dumb poo poo endemic to this forum. Control Volume fucked around with this message at 00:41 on Nov 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
Control Volume posted:I'm more repelled by the rampant and unceasing hostility, sarcasm, and insular nature of thread regulars, traits that I am actively attempting to avoid. If I were to be part of the problem of this forum, my response would be something akin to, "And what exactly is that attitude I'm posting with, Who What Now," possibly with an emoticon or other passive-aggressive gesture. Instead I am posting sincere criticism of it and maybe offering insight into why people avoid this forum to such a degree that a moderator thought a thread like this was necessary. who is it that's 'avoiding' D&D? posters from other subforums on this dying 2005-vintage comedy forum?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
you made this postControl Volume posted:Every time I feel like making a post in this forum I look around at the people posting and realize that they have absolutely no interest in debating or discussing and also that I do not want to be associated with any of them in any circumstance. Namaste. and are crying because of an extremely mild "no u" response i dare say that d&d is no poorer for your lack of engagment, the namaste meme
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
Control Volume posted:One of the issues is that there seems to be a propensity to escalate the sarcasm. My initial post in this thread was very blasé, to be sure, but the immediate response was hostility and derision. What? My immediate response was to encourage you to post and try to change the culture you didn't like, and I'm literally the So let's start again. How do you feel this forum could be best improved upon in a realistic manner? New rules, harsher moderation against hostility, what? You don't like the vibe we give, ok, let's discuss that. Edit You fuckers
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
I'm being very sincere in my last two posts, despite my initial start for which I apologize. To answer your question, I really don't know how to improve the forums without harsher moderation in actually booting out toxic elements beyond just successive probations, but I don't know if this would really contribute to a better forum. Toxicity in political discussion is pretty prevalent in all online discussions like I mentioned so it might not be a problem that can be solved with just moderation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
Control Volume posted:One of the issues is that there seems to be a propensity to escalate the sarcasm. My initial post in this thread was very blasé, to be sure, but the immediate response was hostility and derision. This isn't meant as an attack on Who What Now, but rather the sort of culture that's allowed to foster here. The D&D chat thread, for example, is fairly big on bitter mockery of other threads and posters, despite supposedly being an attempt at reducing the forum being incredibly uptight at the time. The recently locked thread about social issues was full of callouts of other posters, both sides of which seemed disinterested in debate and more interested in feeling superior to each other, and the only response was a half-hearted slap on the wrist on posters that continue their toxic personalities in other threads. Perhaps it's an unsolvable problem of the impersonal nature of the internet, perhaps its a failure of moderation, but regardless of the root cause, this is not an interesting or pleasant forum to read when it could be. Hi there, D&D newbie here. I also think D&D is just too mean to people who hold opposing views. Just because I'm not "politically correct," you're going to rake me over the coals? It's just not fair, and I think this forum could gain a lot from people being nicer to each other.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
Milk Malk posted:Hi there, D&D newbie here. I also think D&D is just too mean to people who hold opposing views. Just because I'm not "politically correct," you're going to rake me over the coals? It's just not fair, and I think this forum could gain a lot from people being nicer to each other. This is exactly the sort of passive-aggressive posting that makes this a bad forum. I honestly prefer the blunt honesty of "this post is dumb, and here's why" that paranoid randroid was giving.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Verge posted:Your sociopath argument seems to argue that I think I would fare much better than everyone else. I am not ok w/ someone dying, for any reason, if they have not lived a full life. That being said, people die. Often times we spend tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayer or insurance money on a life that was, I know it sounds cold to say but, unimportant. Not saying I'm important but I've done enough deeds in the world, performed enough work, to pay such a bill myself. I've proven my inexpendiblity to the world through work, as most people have, and the evidence is in my bank account, as it is yours. The idea that the value of a life is judged by their bank account is, frankly, repulsive. Van Gogh enriched humanity far more than you or I could dream of and died alone and destitute. Jonas Salk working for The National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis developed and were the first step in very nearly eradicating polio but did not patent the cure. They made no money off a vaccine that dropped polio rates from the tens of thousands to dozens. I see that as the true measure of a man, how many dollar bills he has stashed away is the least important thing to judge someone by. When Hawking was diagnosed he had no interest in science. The British taxpayers paid his medical bills and he became one of the most brilliant minds since Einstein. Are you willing to be the judge of the worthiness of a man and whether he deserves to live because at that point he has yet to accumulate enough money? I will be blunt. You are going down that road. To even think that a person deserves to live or die because of how much money they have? Holy crap.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
Control Volume posted:This is exactly the sort of passive-aggressive posting that makes this a bad forum. I honestly prefer the blunt honesty of "this post is dumb, and here's why" that paranoid randroid was giving. Don't worry I'm not being passive aggressive at all friend  . I read the rules, there is no irony-posting allowed ITT.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
Milk Malk posted:Don't worry I'm not being passive aggressive at all friend Doubling down on being tepid irony doesn't make you cool or clever or a good poster.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
Control Volume posted:This is exactly the sort of passive-aggressive posting that makes this a bad forum. I honestly prefer the blunt honesty of "this post is dumb, and here's why" that paranoid randroid was giving. This forum has discussions on the most unpleasant, polarizing and emotional topics. I/P. Police brutality. Racism. Topics that illicit strong opinions and emotions from all sides. If it gets personal the mods are good at shutting it down but if someone posts a vile opinion, "Palastians aren't human and deserved to be nuked into non existence" that person is going to be taken down as the psychopath that he is. All debates on unpleasant subjects get heated on forums and in real life and people with truly vile opinions getting called out on them is a good thing. Treating the poster who thinks female genital mutilation is a cultural thing that we shouldn't care about should not be treated with kid gloves just to keep things pleasant. poo poo quoted the wrong post. Act like I did please 
Toasticle fucked around with this message at 01:35 on Nov 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
Getting heated isn't the issue, though. Take the social issues thread that I talked about. That thread actually wasn't terrible for the first two pages even though people were getting on the OP for being vague about what he wanted to talk about. It was a fair criticism and it was handled well by the criticizers. Then you get strings of posts like this guy's post history: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3750826&userid=203625 Or this guy responding to him: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3750826&pagenumber=4#post452569543 Or Effectronica doing his thing where every single post has an insult thrown in just because. Or the following string of posts where people just poo poo on Effectronica for a bit. You can point out instances where it's understandable, or how they're just reacting to shittiness from the other side, but it doesn't change the end of that thread from being a lovely bunch of posts that ultimately doesn't discuss anything beyond how stupid the person they're quoting is with whatever half-assed sarcastic comment they thought of at the time over what was largely just poorly defined terminology. For a counterpoint to a thread I do read and enjoy occasionally, the gay marriage thread is a decent one most of the time and people have actually discussed and debated things even if they're largely on the same wavelength regarding the issue, but it seems to be one of the exceptions from the D&D threads I've seen. Control Volume fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Nov 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 13:53 |
|
|
More examples: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?noseen=0&threadid=3750508&perpage=40&pagenumber=1#post452511176 This is good poo poo. It's refuting a poster that chronically brings up the same argument without engaging, while also offering insight into climate change that I personally did not have. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3512233&pagenumber=1455#post452569872 This is dumb poo poo. It's a lovely snipe against a person that paints their opinion as something it's not for a point they weren't even making, and in fact the quoted poster doesn't even disagree with their pro-choice position.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 01:58
|
|